Why religious people should renounce their faith

[palerider500]

What's common to one space of thought ISN'T necessarily common to another hence the misnomer of the phrase. Relative sense is the correct form of the phrase that is needed.

We are not discussing what is common to one group, etc. Clearly you did not read the definition I posted so I will post it again...

Common Sense (noun): good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.

I can't see where that definition talks about what is common or not common. Can you?

 

[palerider500]

I don't know why I do this, but any way...

My argument isn't about people looking at the same facts (though this is part of the issue), it is about people who use a failed epistemology, a failure of transmission of warrant, justification or knowledge from premises to conclusions.

You just made my argument for me. That is why I am correct. You just said: "it is about people who use a failed epistemology, a failure of transmission of warrant, justification or knowledge from premises to conclusions."

Basically you're saying that these people lacked evidence, facts, etc to arrive at their conclusions which is EXACTLY what I've been saying the whole entire time.

In the OP I specify that I have in mind those who believe in their religion because of indoctrination, emotions or feelings they experience when attending religious congregations or listening to recitations of their scripture, or even observing nature and directly arriving at their conclusion from the awe and wonder it produces in them, etc. All these are taken as premises by these believers. The problem is that on the basis of these premises one can arrive at, any conclusion. The truth of any religion could be claimed and held by any person on the basis of these reasons alone. These premises fail to transmit anything to the conclusion, hence it is a failed epistemology.

That is the point. They arrived at their beliefs because most of the time they were TOLD that it was true. You will NEVER be able to win this argument.

This is circular reasoning: "I am right because I truly studied." How do you know you truly studied, i.e. that what you studied is correct? "because I am right and because I truly studied the 2nd order studies." So either this ends up being circular or an infinite regression of an infinite levels of studies.

Right now you are showing ME that you do not possess common sense. Now seriously, did I say that a person is right just because they studied?...

...OR did I say that a person will usually be right if they studied, can present facts and evidence to support their position?

Right now you are proving to me that you lack common sense cause you are unable to truly understand the written word AND your reasoning is faulty and all over the place.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Kalam-esque not Kalam-lite, Argument from Kalam or AfK I guess

Changes nothing. Calling it "kalam-esque" is just as ignorant as calling it "kalam-lite".

And that animal that can recognize fire as an expectation of smoke has higher computational abilities, a function of the physical brains architecture.

I've already explained why defining rationality as "higher computational abilities" doesn't work: because by that definition of rationality, a non-rational creature could be considered rational.

Making a rock rational? Inconsistent with experience for sure and with no explanation or mechanism, basically magic.

I agree that it's inconsistent with experience, but that doesn't mean it's metaphysically impossible. If you think it is, explain how. If you don't, then your 'objection' is a quibble.

Yes the grounds for our brains higher computational ability are material,

You're a little confused. Grounds are premises e.g. "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal." These are the grounds for your belief that Socrates is mortal. They are not material.

"Events"... I'm guessing your definition will be more word play :

No word play. Are you denying that when you make a rational inference, a change from one physical state to another occurs inside your brain? In fact, isn't this premise essential to your whole argument? The change from one physical state to another is an event.

Events exist
Naturalism doesn't produce events
Therefore god exists

This is a straw man. I have not made such an argument. IIRC I've actually said that the idea of nature being the IF is not (at least as far as I can tell) incoherent, as long as no rational inference would ever occur.

Just like:

Actions exist
Naturalism produces reactions not actions
Therefore god exists

How is this word games? Are you claiming that when the doctor taps your knee and you kick, you're acting? That, as far as I'm concerned, is reacting, and there's a fundamental difference between those kinds of behaviors and purposive behavior. You haven't explained how the idea of actions emerging from reactions is coherent.

And:

Rationality exists
Naturalism is irrational
Therefore god exists

Naturalism is an irrational belief, but nature itself is not irrational -- it's nonrational. It would be more accurate for you to say "Naturalism is irrational" as a conclusion, rather make it the second premise. I haven't used "Naturalism is irrational" as a presumption. It's something I've deduced.

"Rational Inferences" "Actions" and I'm guessing "Events" are just terms where you've made up the definition to fit your narrative.

Then you have guessed wrong.

You've "deduced" it by loading your definitions. It seems like you're really trying to define god into existence by using axioms that no one really agrees with and already assumes your conclusion.

I think you're making a false accusation. Rational creatures need to interact with natural causation to do things, including to think, but for our rationality to come from nonrational causation is, I think, impossible. Unlike a soul, a brain is physical, and since a brain is physical, if naturalism is true, all caused mental events must have only and ultimately nonrational causes. Theism on the other hand allows for nonrational causation to gives us shape (literally and figuratively) for our rational actions, with inferences being a key rational action. Nonrational causes by themselves cannot produce rationality nor (consequently) rational effects, much less produce rational causes. Nonrational causes cannot produce rationality at all. But they can and do help in producing our thinking. Rational behavior has the power to cause physical events. Premises are a product of rational behavior, too, but a sort of abstract derivation from rational action. Reason can cause physical events shaped both physically and abstractly by reason's knowledge of premises.

 

[mrbaapt]

We are not discussing what is common to one group, etc. Clearly you did not read the definition I posted so I will post it again...

Common Sense (noun): good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.

I can't see where that definition talks about what is common or not common. Can you?

"good" is relative to the context it relates to.

 

[meauneau]

Here again is where you fail to comprehend. Not all reasoning is the same. There is faulty reasoning, BAD reasoning, and sound reasoning. They are different for a REASON.

If you lack basic common sense most of the time you will use faulty and BAD reasoning every single time.

I know that not all reasoning is the same. Now, why didn't you answer my question? I'll ask again: If I have facts (true premises) and I am capable of reasoning and constructing arguments (valid logic), why do I need common sense?

Belief (noun):

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Most of the time children grow up believing in God or a higher figure because their parents indoctrinated them with that belief. That is a fact and there is no way around it.

Belief and "faith" can make a person believe almost ANYTHING.

Where the fuk did you find that definition of belief? So what if I believe that a statement is not true or that something does not exist? This is a belief also. You defined only positive beliefs.

I don't know why I bother, but anyway...

Yes and AGAIN not all observation is good. There is GOOD observation and BAD observation. You seem unable to distinguish between the 2.

LOL. What is the difference between good and bad observation? The observations these philosophers made were the same observations anyone could make. The philosopher rejected the common sense view of the people and arrived at a correct view of the world. Those who stuck with common sense had an incorrect view of the world. You respond that there is good and bad observation. How the fuk is this an objection to what I said?

People who use common sense can sometimes be wrong but they will rarely be wrong on a fact based issue. That is because common sense should tell them to read and understand facts before ever fully accepting a position.

In the end you need all 3 to come to a correct position.

That is why you have the top experts in many fields disagreeing about whether some facts support one theory or another, about what caused this or that, or even in court where judges sometimes come to opposing verdicts.

Do you think general relativity or QM is based on common sense or rather thinking outside the box? Look at the philosophers of the past, and the present, they are mostly sceptical and or cautious of common sense. Common sense leads people to false beliefs most of the time. Common sense has no authority at all.

Ask people around you which of these argument forms is invalid and they will not know which it is because it is not common sense:

1)
P —> Q
P
∴ Q

2)
P —> Q
Q
∴ P

Which do we trust, the laws of logic or what common sense tells us?

 

[meauneau]

You just made my argument for me. That is why I am correct. You just said: "it is about people who use a failed epistemology, a failure of transmission of warrant, justification or knowledge from premises to conclusions."

Basically you're saying that these people lacked evidence, facts, etc to arrive at their conclusions which is EXACTLY what I've been saying the whole entire time.

If anything you accepted my argument since I posted this first in the OP. Maybe it took you a few days to realise because you are mentally slow or something.

That is the point. They arrived at their beliefs because most of the time they were TOLD that it was true. You will NEVER be able to win this argument.

How can I not win the argument if you are agreeing with me? Autism maybe?

Right now you are showing ME that you do not possess common sense. Now seriously, did I say that a person is right just because they studied?...

...OR did I say that a person will usually be right if they studied, can present facts and evidence to support their position?

Right now you are proving to me that you lack common sense cause you are unable to truly understand the written word AND your reasoning is faulty and all over the place.

What I say is that even if you claim to have studied and to have facts and evidence for you position someone else, a peer, can also claim the same but come to an opposing conclusion.

Since you agree with my argument in the OP, wtf is this about?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

But if the physical events in the brain cause rational inferences, then rational inferences are made naturally.

The laws of logic are independent of god(s). So even if god(s) didn't exist and naturalism is the case, Modus Ponens/Tollens would still be a valid argument and anyone who reasoned this way and reached a true conclusion would have reasoned and thought rationally and logically in a naturalistic world.

The physical events in the brain don't cause rational inferences.

 

[meauneau]

The physical events in the brain don't cause rational inferences.

because...

Why should anyone accept this claim?

 

[second sight]

Politics
George W. Bush’s Daughter Barbara Bush Will Be the Keynote Speaker at a Planned Parenthood Fundraiser


Barbara Bush, the daughter of former President George W. Bush, will be the keynote speaker at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser.

The speech is part of Planned Parenthood Greater Texas’ annual Fort Worth Luncheon, the Texas Tribune reports. The event will be held on Wednesday and seeks to raise money for the non-profit organization that provides reproductive and sexual healthcare services, including abortion.

Bush’s appearance is notable, as her father was an opponent of abortion during his time as governor of Texas and president of the United States. But Bush herself called Planned Parenthood an “exceptional organization” in an interview with the New YorkTimes in June.

Bush is also the CEO and co-founder of Global Health Corps, a non-profit organization whose website says its vision is to “[advance] social justice through the health equity movement.”

 

[Deleted member 159002]

because...

Why should anyone accept this claim?

For reasons I've explained throughout this thread.

 

[meauneau]

For reasons I've explained throughout this thread.

Can you link me to them?

 

[Luger]

I wish you the best of luck with that, without any faith in your lack of faith

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Can you link me to them?

You're already in the thread. There's no need for me to link to individual posts. But to summarize why physical events in the brain don't cause rational inferences: because a person's reason for having a justified belief for something, if naturalism is true, must be explainable purely in terms of physical causation. If your justified belief that X was caused by something, it must have been caused by non-purposive physical causes, which cannot be affected by non-physical abstract entities like 'premises'.

 

[cooks1]

I was raised by atheists and became a Buddhist at 23 when I got sober. It has worked quite well for me.

So no, I won't renounce my faith.

Well as far as religions go, Buddhism is pretty benign.

The 'Middle Path' is a useful common sense tool to live a fulfilling life. And Buddhists, though they have had a few episodes over the centuries, certainly can lay claim to being in the least violent major religion.

So if you gotta pick one, I guess Buddhism would be one of the better ones.

 

[cooks1]

No one should denounce their beliefs because of pressure from society. Its none of your business what I believe. Live your own life, stop being so scared and/or hateful.

I am an atheist, but I can still get behind this in principle. People have the right to their own beliefs. But if those beliefs lead someone to take immoral, illegal, or unethical actions, then you either need to question the dogma, or it's interpretation.

A cautionary note though. Since you believe so firmly that it is none of your business what others believe, I do not want to see any proselytizing out of you. I find it paradoxical that religious people fervently hold onto their freedom to worship as they please, but almost without exception a fundamental part of their dogma is to try and get other people to change their minds.

 

[S Class]

All hail the Imperial Cult

 

[cooks1]

what is funny is that the posters with the most blindest faith I have ever seen are ATHEISTS. They can never give a reason for their beliefs which is God does not exist and the supernatural does not exist. At best they regurgle some post for some other loser. In fact, most atheists are really agnostics but being agnostic is not douchbag enough for them.

Atheists can be douches just as easily as a person of faith. I think that is really what you are getting at. And that is certainly true. But I don't think you have even a basic understanding of atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. They have 0.00 faith. So it is impossible for them to have the 'blind faith' you describe.

Many atheists are also agnostics. Contrary to popular belief, You can be both. I am both. I will try to explain it do you as simply as I can.

1) Atheists do not believe in deities. Theists Do.

2) Agnostics don't profess to know, and do not believe it can be known. In other words, they do not believe proof exists. 'Gnostics' Believe there is proof.

3) Agnostics and Gnostics can BOTH be either theists or atheists.

I do not profess to know to a certainty the origin of the universe or what happens after you die. But I do not have any belief that there is a deity or supreme being behind it. In the circles below, I am in the green.

I think if you reflect long and hard on it, you will come to realize that the agnostic atheists and the agnostic theists, are in general, pretty reasonable rational people. Happy to be secure in their beliefs and leave others to theirs. Those are the people in the purple and green. They are the people on the planet that should be allowed to reproduce

The people in the purple and olive green (gnostic theists and atheists) you will come to realize is where 99.99% of all douchebaggery comes from.

 

[meauneau]

You're already in the thread. There's no need for me to link to individual posts. But to summarize why physical events in the brain don't cause rational inferences: because a person's reason for having a justified belief for something, if naturalism is true, must be explainable purely in terms of physical causation. If your justified belief that X was caused by something, it must have been caused by non-purposive physical causes, which cannot be affected by non-physical abstract entities like 'premises'.

Being in a situation where I can see x next to y when x is bigger than y justifies my belief that x is bigger than y. This is a situational justification. So when I see another thing z and see that y is bigger than x, then I can deduce that x is bigger than z without having to put x and z side by side. All this does not necessitate any substance dualism. Pure physicalism is enough to account for all of this.

By positing an extra kind, a non physical kind, you explain nothing and actually need more explanation, for instance how these two substances interact causally. Whith physicalism we have one kind only and this explains how we apprehend abstracta. All mental phenomena are physically realised, they emerge from the physical.

And finally, one can be a naturalist but not a physicalist. There are many naturalist philosophers who are not physicalists, they allow abstracta such as numbers, possibilities, universals, etc.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Being in a situation where I can see x next to y when x is bigger than y justifies my belief that x is bigger than y. This is a situational justification. So when I see another thing z and see that y is bigger than x, then I can deduce that x is bigger than z without having to put x and z side by side. All this does not necessitate any substance dualism. Pure physicalism is enough to account for all of this.

By positing an extra kind, a non physical kind, you explain nothing and actually need more explanation, for instance how these two substances interact causally. Whith physicalism we have one kind only and this explains how we apprehend abstracta. All mental phenomena are physically realised, they emerge from the physical.

And finally, one can be a naturalist but not a physicalist. There are many naturalist philosophers who are not physicalists, they allow abstracta such as numbers, possibilities, universals, etc.

I don't think so. What are you claiming, that when 'you' (which per naturalism is just a bundle of matter) are exposed to x, y, and z, x, y, and z determine how the matter in your brain will 'behave'?

 

[meauneau]

I don't think so. What are you claiming, that when 'you' (which per naturalism is just a bundle of matter) are exposed to x, y, and z, x, y, and z determine how the matter in your brain will 'behave'?

It is not the matter. Rather, it is the system that emerges from the matter.